Skip to main content

Accused cannot be added to a pending case at mere asking of police

Lower courts should not include every other individual pinned down by the police as an accused in criminal cases without calling for materials to prove their involvement and getting satisfied, prima facie, about the need to prosecute them, the Madras High Court Bench here has said. Justice S. Nagamuthu made the observation while setting aside an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate at Uthamapalayam in Theni district on March 12, 2007 including two individuals as additional accused in a cheating case at the mere asking of the Rayappanpatti police and without any basis.

The judge pointed out that the police had initially booked the case against only one individual. Subsequently, an Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting the Magistrate to add two more individuals as accused in the case. The petition did not contain any detail about the materials available with the prosecution to array the two as additional accused and as to how were they involved in the crime. Yet, the Magistrate allowed the petition and added the duo as accused forcing them to approach the High Court.

Shocked over the injustice that had been caused to the two individuals, Mr. Justice Nagamuthu said: “In the instant case, I regret to say that both the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Judicial Magistrate have failed to discharge their legal obligation in a proper manner.

“I do not understand as to how a Judicial Magistrate can pass such a non-speaking order without reference to the evidence and without reference to the requirement under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. This is a classic example of how a judicial order should not be passed by any court.”

The judge directed the High Court Registry to forward of a copy of his order to the Magistrate, who was presiding over the court in Uthamapalayam in March 2007, “if he is in service even now and wherever he is, so that he does not repeat the same mistake in the future.”

 Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/accused-cannot-be-added-to-a-pending-case-at-mere-asking-of-police-says-high-court/article7128115.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more